Many Reviewers Unfit.

(We invite all men in the University to submit communications on subjects of timely interest, but assume no responsibility for sentiments expressed under this head.)

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I am not an editor of any Harvard publication, and I am not writing this letter to defend any editorial board. But it has appeared to me after three years of assiduous perusal of almost all the publications here, together with their reviews as published in the CRIMSON, that some one ought to caution the undergraduates against the majority of the reviewers. In his honest review of the Advocate, published in the CRIMSON, March 7, Doctor Maynadier has this sentence, pregnant with uncommonly good sense: "Any officer of the College, even 'the young assistant,' must have a point of view so different from that of the undergraduates that to him the most conspicuous trait of undergraduate publications is likely to be youth."

Such a statement ought to have been uttered ages ago; for, it will appear, most of the editors of undergraduate publications have been attempting to meet the conditions these reviewers have imposed upon them, and, strange though it may seem to "the young assistant," one cannot grow up in a night--even after a scathing review of his "immature" style. It has grown upon me, as I have looked through the files of the CRIMSON reviews, preparatory to writing this letter, that the only persons to be trusted with a pen in criticising undergraduate literary efforts are professors, out a dozen or more years--or undergraduates. The most honest, and least superficial reviews of the year have been written by Professor Neilson, Dr. Maynadier, P. W. Thayer '14, and W. C. B., Jr., '14. Aside from these, the rest of the reviews are, in the main, the issue of precocity, mated with the unreserve of a female infant.

P. W. Thayer '14, himself a writer of no mean ability, and W. C. B., Jr., '14 whatever modest person he is, have both reviewed the Illustrated, perhaps the hardest magazine for a literary person to criticise without losing his temper. They have done better than many of their seniors. Both conclude that it needs more skill in presentation, but that there is a great interest in its subject matter. What grave "assistant" would have stopped with this.

By far the majority of the reviews have been equivocating. After much flattery about the wonderful brain powers of the poor writers, they proceed to the stereotyped statement that there is a conspicuous lack of maturity present. Well, what then? Read Dr. Maynadier.

The Musical Review has uniformly escaped with fewer shafts sticking to its ribs than the others--but that is mainly because its reviewers have been too generous to strike an infant. Generally its reviews have been inconsequential because of the tendency of its critics to assume a fatherly attitude, and try to teach it to lisp. If any one desires to know an illustration, he may read H. K. Moderwell's review of a recent number.

Frequently critics have not attempted a review of the issue but have merely tried to disprove the writer's statements. (See Professor Heilman's criticism of Roger Session's article on "Our Attitude to Contemporary Musical Tendencies," in The Musical Review, and Professor R. B. Perry's review of C. M. Rogers's screed on "The Freshman Dormitories, in the January Monthly). But the average young man of twenty-one years cannot be expected to have the same perspective as his professors.

If my disgorging here seems unpleasant to some, it might well be remembered that for three years I have been glutted by reviews that my system cannot assimilate, or carry off with grace.  J. Games '14.

The annual Oxford-Cambridge crew race will be rowed on March 28